United States v. Takhalov
| Citation | 838 F.3d 1168 |
| Decision Date | 03 October 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. 13-12385,13-12385 |
| Parties | United States of America, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Albert Takhalov, Isaac Feldman, Stanislav Pavlenko, Defendants–Appellants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
838 F.3d 1168
United States of America, Plaintiff–Appellee,
v.
Albert Takhalov, Isaac Feldman, Stanislav Pavlenko, Defendants–Appellants.
No. 13-12385
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Date Filed: October 3, 2016
Kathleen Mary Salyer, John C. Shipley, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Wifredo A. Ferrer, Richard Daniel Gregorie, Daren Grove, Emily M. Smachetti, Michael Eric Thakur, U.S. Attorney's Office, Miami, FL, for Plaintiff–Appellee.
Howard M. Srebnick, Black Srebnick Kornspan & Stumpf, PA, John E. Bergendahl, Law Offices of John E. Bergendahl, Richard Carroll Klugh, Jr., Law Offices of Richard C. Klugh, Richard Docobo, Richard Docobo, PA, Miami, FL, Marcia Jean Silvers, Marcia J. Silvers, PA, Coral Gables, FL, Myles H. Malman, Malman Malman & Rosenthal, Fort Lauderdale, FL, for Defendants–Appellants.
Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, MARTIN, Circuit Judge, and THAPAR,* District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
In July 2016, this Court reversed all of Stanislav Pavlenko's wire-fraud convictions—except one. See Op. at 41 (July 11, 2016). That was his conviction for Count 21 of the indictment, which charged Pavlenko with lying in an email to American Express (“AMEX”). [DE 953 at 15]. Though the district judge erred in failing to provide the defense's requested fraud instruction, the Court found that error harmless as to Count 21. See Op. at 36–37.
Both Pavlenko and the government have moved for panel rehearing. They bring the same argument—that Count 21 should not be an outlier—but from opposite directions. Pavlenko argues that, since the error was not harmless as to the other counts, it was not harmless as to Count 21. See Pavlenko Pet. for Reh'g at 2–6 (Aug. 1, 2016). The government argues that, since the error was harmless as to Count 21, it was harmless as to the other counts, too. See Government Pet. for Reh'g at 5–10 (Aug. 1, 2016).
We need not address the harmless-error issue, however, because Pavlenko also argues that the government failed to give the jury sufficient evidence to convict him under Count 21, and we are now convinced that argument has merit. See Pavlenko Pet. for Reh'g at 6–13; see also Pavlenko Initial Br. at 40 (Sept. 26, 2014).
When a convicted defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, we look at the evidence “in the light most favorable to the verdict.” United States v. Hasson , 333 F.3d 1264, 1270 (11th...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Johnson
...Cir. 1970); United States v. Takhalov, 827 F.3d 1307 (11th Cir.), as revised (Oct. 3, 2016), opinion modified on denial of reh'g, 838 F.3d 1168 (11th Cir. 2016)). In response, the Government maintains that the indictment "alleged that the conspiracy constituted a violation of the public's r......
-
United States v. Feldman
...others, we reversed their convictions. See United States v. Takhalov , 827 F.3d 1307 (11th Cir.), modified on denial of reh’g , 838 F.3d 1168 (11th Cir. 2016). After a retrial, a second jury found Feldman guilty of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and conspiracy to commit money laundering. T......
-
United States v. Swenson
...reasonably shows that Swenson perpetrated her scheme to intentionally and fraudulently acquire funds.Swenson counters by citing United States v. Takhalov ( Takhalov I ) and arguing that there was no intent to defraud the Neidriches because they "received exactly what they paid for"—fees rel......
-
United States v. Greenlaw
...See United States v. Takhalov, 827 F.3d 1307, 1314 (11th Cir.), as rev'd (Oct. 3, 2016), opinion modified on denial of reh'g, 838 F.3d 1168 (11th Cir. 2016). Investors exposed to a risk of loss because they thought they were buying into a business that was performing well but UDF III was no......
-
Mail and Wire Fraud
...1095, 1103 (9th Cir. 2020); United States v. Takhalov, 827 F.3d 1307, 1312–13 (11th Cir. 2016), modified on reh’g on other grounds , 838 F.3d 1168 (11th Cir. 2016). 40. See, e.g. , United States v. Segal, 644 F.3d 364, 367 (7th Cir. 2011); United States v. Lundberg, 990 F.3d 1087, 1095 (7t......